November 10, 2010

Presentations at 4:00, 7:00

Please Sign In
Take a Comment Sheet
Review the Boards
Ask Questions of Staff and Consultant
Leave Comment Sheet at Sign In Table

Thanks for Coming!!

 November 10, 2010

Welcome to the Meeting!

Our Program Tonight:

1. Find out about the Connector study
2. Find out about alternative transit
technologies
3. Hear preliminary study findings
4. Give us your comments to help guide
our study process
 November 10, 2010

Study Overview
What is the Ann Arbor
Connector Feasibility Study?

Study Purpose - To determine the

feasibility of advanced transit options for Project Sponsors:
the city to meet growing transportation
demands.
Downtown
• Supplement multi-modal Development
transportation system Authority
City of
• More travel options Ann Arbor
• Convenience University
of Michigan
• Sustainability
Ann Arbor
• Improve safety Transportation
• Economic stability and growth Authority

• Improve overall quality of life

 November 10, 2010

Study Overview
Transportation is
Important to our Community

Previous studies by the City, County, AATA, DDA, U-M and WATS
have identified common themes that have led to this study:

Sustainable
Transportation
Minimize
Road
Expansion

Support Non-
motorized
Travel
The University of Michigan Increased
sponsored a Transportation Use of
Technology Forum to explore Transit
and advance input to the
Connector Study
 November 10, 2010

Study Overview
Study Area Map
 November 10, 2010

Study Overview
Project Approach
• Congestion
• Travel Reliability
• Regional Policies / Goals

Is There a
Need? Define the
Market

Findings
Recommend- • Trip Demand
ations • Geographic
Location
Develop
Alternatives

Feasibility
Analysis /
Screening
• Ridership
• Engineering / Environmental
Challenges
• Costs and Funding
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Corridor Congestion

• Key Corridors are

Congested:

– Plymouth Road

– State Street
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Corridor Congestion

• Key Corridors
are Congested:
– Plymouth
Road
– State Street
• Development
Expected to
Occur
in Corridor
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Corridor Congestion

• Key Corridors are

Congested:
– Plymouth Road
– State Street
• Development Expected to
Occur in Corridor
• Volume Forecasted to
Increase:
– Plymouth Road: +10%
– Fuller Road: +11%
– State Street: +10%
• LRTP: Widening Key
Routes is Not In Plan
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Regional Connectivity

• Connector for intercity rail initiatives

• Support for county-wide transit
• Attract the ‘choice’ riders
• Park and ride intercept service
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Transit Utilization

• Key corridors for existing

AATA Service

Service Riders per

Frequency Weekday

Plymouth 15 Minute 2,286

Road

State Street 7 Minute 2,771

• Primary Destinations
– UM Medical Center
– Downtown
– UM Central Campus
• Standing loads occur frequently
• Extra buses added to accommodate peak ridership
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Transit Utilization

• Bus Performance: Negatively

Impacted by Roadway
Congestion
• Currently: 25-30% of Time is
Waiting for Signals!!
• More Volume – More Delay:
– Congested Conditions:
Delay Increases by 2-3
Times Volume Increase
• Bus Times Will Become Less
Reliable
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Transit Utilization

Total Number of Northbound and Southbound Bus Trips per Hour

Between CC Little and Pierpont Commons

70
UM Inter-Campus Bus System 60

Operates at Critical Capacity:

Number of Buses
50

40
– Buses run every 2 – 3 30

Minutes during peak 20

periods 10

0
– Peak periods last from

PM
7
8
9

1
2
3
4

00 5

7
8
9

1
2
10

(n 1

10

id 11
t)
n)
1

gh
A

oo
00

ni
9:00 am to 4:00 pm

6:

6:
PM

(m
AM
0
:0
12

0
:0
– Buses in peak periods are

12
Time of Day
standing room only
– Ridership:
• North to Central
Campus: 30,700 / Day
• Peak: 3,500 Riders in
Peak Hour
– Peak Buses between
Campuses: 60 Per Hour
 November 10, 2010
Defining the Need –
Community Vitality

• Better transit makes Ann

Arbor a more desirable
place to live and work
– Maintain jobs
– Accessible work force
– Stabilize tax base
– Affordable housing
• Transit is an alternative to
building more parking
 November 10, 2010

Defining the Alternatives

• Hours of the Day

• Frequency / Time Between
Vehicles
• Fare Collection Methods

• Intermodal Connectivity
• New Route(s):
• Locations
– Uses Existing Street?
• Amenities
– Separate Corridor /
Guideway
• Changes to Existing Routes?
 November 10, 2010

Defining the Alternatives

Light Rail Transit

Bus Rapid
Transit

Elevated
AGT

Streetcar
 November 10, 2010

Defining the Alternatives

Streetcars
Little Rock, AR Portland, OR

Tacoma, WA

Tacoma, WA
 November 10, 2010

Defining the Alternatives

Light Rail
Transit (LRT)
Minneapolis, MN Charlotte, NC

Dallas, TX Dallas, TX Denver, CO

 November 10, 2010

Defining the Alternatives

Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT)
Eugene, OR

Kansas City, MO Cleveland, OH

 November 10, 2010

Defining the Alternatives

Automated
Guideway
Transit
Detroit, MI Elevated AGT

Las Vegas, NV
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

2010 Total Daily Transit Ridership

45,000

40,000

35,000
Legend
Segment Daily Riders

30,000
― Segment Daily Ridership
25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
North Campus

Central Campus

Briarwood Mall
Downtown
US 23

Medical Center
Campus

Activity Area
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

• Two Area Types:

– High Demand Core 23

– Moderate Demand
Shoulders

• Because there is travel

demand between all
Activity Centers, it makes
sense to connect them
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Connector Service Concept

• Core :
23
– High Capacity
– High Frequency
• End-to-End:
– Moderate Capacity
– Moderate Frequency
• Dual Service in Core
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Recommended Core
Technologies
Bus Rapid
Transit

23

Light Rail
Transit

Elevated
AGT
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Recommended End-to-End
Technologies
Bus Rapid
Transit

23

Streetcar

Bus
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Engineering and
Environmental Challenges
– Huron River Crossing
– Topography
– Railroad Crossings
– Roadway Crossings
– Right of way
– Historic districts
– Floodplains

These challenges are not barriers

but will be considerations in the
cost and design of a new transit
system.

Study Findings
Capital and Operating Costs
• Capital Costs depend on
technology and alignment
– BRT $15-20M per mile
– LRT $50-60M per mile
– Elevated $200M+ per mile
November 10, 2010
• Operating Costs
– Net new costs of operating
and maintaining an advanced
transit system would range
from $0.5 to $1.5 M/mile
annually, depending on
technology and alignment
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Funding

• Funding for major transit investments typically comes

from multiple sources
• Project could qualify for federal funding of up to 50%

Hiawatha Light Rail Portland Streetcar

Portland
Parking Fund
Transportation
Federal Grant for MnDOT (Cash)
Federal Transportation Resources
Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Funds Agreement with
Tri-Met Reallocated as
Local Funds HUD Grant

Tax
Increment
Metropolitan Airports
Local Improvement
Commission
District Private
Federal
Sector Funds
Hennepin County
Regional Rail Authority
Parking Fund
(Bonds)
State of Minnesota
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Summary

• There are two distinct areas

23
of travel demand:

– High Demand Core

warrants high capacity
service

– Moderate Demand
Shoulders warrant
end-to-end connection
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Summary
• Within the High Demand Core, appropriate
technologies are:
Elevated Light Rail Bus Rapid
AGT Transit Transit

• End-to-end service should be integrated with the core

service. Appropriate end-to-end technologies are:
Bus Bus Rapid Streetcar
Transit
 November 10, 2010

Study Findings

Summary
Sustainable
• The engineering and Transportation
environmental challenges Minimize
Road
are not barriers but will be Expansion
considerations in the cost
and design of a new transit Support Non-
motorized
system. Travel
Increased
• Funding for major transit Use of
investments typically comes Transit
from multiple sources

• Project could qualify for federal funding of up to 50%

• Implementing an advanced transit system would help move

Ann Arbor to achieving long term transportation goals
 November 10, 2010

Next Steps

If Community Supports…
Next Steps
Current Feasibility
Project Study
This feasibility study is the
Future
Alternatives first of a number of steps

capital and operating financial plan

Activities required to implement an

Development and refinement of

Analysis
advanced transit system.
Preliminary
These future Engineering If feasible, more detailed
steps can design studies and
take 5 to 20
Environmental additional community
years to
complete
Review working sessions will be
depending required.
on the Final Design
technology, Identification of funding
alignment sources is a critical step
and funding Construction to implementation.
 November 10, 2010

Discussion

1. From the information that we presented, have we made the

case for why some kind of new alternative transit technology
in the Plymouth Road / downtown / State Street corridors
would be advantageous to the community?
2. If further study occurs what issues are important to be
addressed?
3. Would you be interested in seeing a new form of transit
technology used in the Plymouth Road / downtown / State
Street corridors – and if so, why?
4. Do you have any other comments or questions for us
regarding this “Connector Study”?
5. Should the community continue with the next steps to
implement an alternative transit technology?